Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2024
Quality of plastic surgery Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) studies: A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uhlman Kathryn, Behroozian Tara, Lewandowski Natalia, Yuan Morgan, Kim Patrick, Hatchell Alexandra, Voineskos Sophocles, Temple-Oberle Claire, Thoma Achilles
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In effort to improve post-operative outcomes, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have gained popularity. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and methodological quality of plastic surgery ERAS studies.
METHODS: All plastic surgery ERAS implementation studies, published between January 1, 2020, to November 20, 2023, were included. The primary outcome was reporting quality based on "The Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research (RECOvER) checklist" (40 points). Secondary outcomes included methodology quality as per ERAS® Society endorsed guidelines (Breast 18 points; Head and Neck (H&N) 24 points).
RESULTS: Fifty ERAS studies were included (breast reconstruction: 29, 58%; head and neck: 7, 14%; craniofacial: 6, 12%; aesthetic: 5, 10%; other: 3, 6%). Average reporting quality was 22.6/40 (56.7%). ERAS protocol elements least adhered to included: patient warming strategy (8/50, 16%), management of post-operative fluids (14/50, 28%), and post-discharge outcome tracking (14/50, 28%). Evaluation of breast methodological quality revealed average compliance of 9.2/18 (51.3%). The least complied with elements included preoperative computed tomography angiography (4/23, 17.4%), intraoperative warming (6/23, 26.1%), and post-operative wound management (2/23, 8.7%). For head and neck studies, average compliance was 9.1/23 (39.6%). The least complied with elements included pre-anesthesia pain medications (1/7, 14.3%), post-operative wound care (0/7, 0%), and urinary catheterization removal (1/7, 14.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: ERAS implementation studies in plastic surgery are highly variable, with overall low reporting and methodology quality. Plastic surgeons should be cautious when adopting published ERAS protocols that do not adhere to the recommended and official ERAS® Society guidelines.
METHODS: All plastic surgery ERAS implementation studies, published between January 1, 2020, to November 20, 2023, were included. The primary outcome was reporting quality based on "The Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research (RECOvER) checklist" (40 points). Secondary outcomes included methodology quality as per ERAS® Society endorsed guidelines (Breast 18 points; Head and Neck (H&N) 24 points).
RESULTS: Fifty ERAS studies were included (breast reconstruction: 29, 58%; head and neck: 7, 14%; craniofacial: 6, 12%; aesthetic: 5, 10%; other: 3, 6%). Average reporting quality was 22.6/40 (56.7%). ERAS protocol elements least adhered to included: patient warming strategy (8/50, 16%), management of post-operative fluids (14/50, 28%), and post-discharge outcome tracking (14/50, 28%). Evaluation of breast methodological quality revealed average compliance of 9.2/18 (51.3%). The least complied with elements included preoperative computed tomography angiography (4/23, 17.4%), intraoperative warming (6/23, 26.1%), and post-operative wound management (2/23, 8.7%). For head and neck studies, average compliance was 9.1/23 (39.6%). The least complied with elements included pre-anesthesia pain medications (1/7, 14.3%), post-operative wound care (0/7, 0%), and urinary catheterization removal (1/7, 14.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: ERAS implementation studies in plastic surgery are highly variable, with overall low reporting and methodology quality. Plastic surgeons should be cautious when adopting published ERAS protocols that do not adhere to the recommended and official ERAS® Society guidelines.